Camila S Sampaio1, Katherin D Niemann1, Daniel D Schweitzer2, Ronaldo Hirata3, Pablo J Atria1,4. 1. Department of Biomaterials, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. 2. Key Opinion Leader Imaging and CAD/CAM System, Dentsply Sirona, Santiago, Chile. 3. Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, New York, USA. 4. New York University, Sackler Institute of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, through microcomputed tomography (μCT), the cement film thickness of veneers and crowns made with different provisional materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A veneer and a crown preparation were performed on a central incisor and a second molar of a dental model, respectively, scanned with an intraoral scanner, and the .stl files were exported to an LCD-based SLA three-dimensional (3D)-Printer. Twenty-four preparations were 3D-printed for each veneer and crown and divided into four groups (n = 6/group): (a) Acrylic resin (Acrílico Marche); (b) Bisacrylic resin (Protemp 4); (c) PMMA computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) (Vipiblock); and (d) 3D-printed resin for provisional restorations (Raydent C&B for temporary crown and bridge). Veneers and crowns restorations were performed and cemented with a flowable composite. Each specimen was scanned with a μCT apparatus, files were imported for data analysis, and cement film thickness was quantitatively measured. Data were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests (α = .05). RESULTS: Crowns presented a thicker cementation film than veneers (P < .05).The bisacrylic resin showed the smallest veneer film thickness, similar to the acrylic resin (P = .151), which was not significantly different than the PMMA CAD/CAM material (P = .153). The 3D printed provisional material showed the thicker film, different than all other materials (P < .05). The bisacrylic resin showed a cement film thickness with a high number of voids in its surface. For crowns cementation, the 3D printed provisional material showed the thicker cementation film, different than all other materials (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Different provisional materials present different film thicknesses. The 3D printed provisional material showed the highest veneer and crown film thicknesses. Veneers film thicknesses were smaller than crowns for all provisional materials. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The 3D printed provisional material studied can be satisfactorily used, presenting appropriate adaptation with the tooth preparation, however, it shows the highest cement film thickness for both veneers and crowns cementations when compared with other provisional materials. A better internal fit, or smaller cement film thickness is obtained by CAD/CAM materials, acrylic and bisacrylic resins. Veneer cementation showed a smaller cement film thickness compared with crown cementation for all provisional materials.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, through microcomputed tomography (μCT), the cement film thickness of veneers and crowns made with different provisional materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A veneer and a crown preparation were performed on a central incisor and a second molar of a dental model, respectively, scanned with an intraoral scanner, and the .stl files were exported to an LCD-based SLA three-dimensional (3D)-Printer. Twenty-four preparations were 3D-printed for each veneer and crown and divided into four groups (n = 6/group): (a) Acrylic resin (Acrílico Marche); (b) Bisacrylic resin (Protemp 4); (c) PMMA computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) (Vipiblock); and (d) 3D-printed resin for provisional restorations (Raydent C&B for temporary crown and bridge). Veneers and crowns restorations were performed and cemented with a flowable composite. Each specimen was scanned with a μCT apparatus, files were imported for data analysis, and cement film thickness was quantitatively measured. Data were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests (α = .05). RESULTS: Crowns presented a thicker cementation film than veneers (P < .05).The bisacrylic resin showed the smallest veneer film thickness, similar to the acrylic resin (P = .151), which was not significantly different than the PMMACAD/CAM material (P = .153). The 3D printed provisional material showed the thicker film, different than all other materials (P < .05). The bisacrylic resin showed a cement film thickness with a high number of voids in its surface. For crowns cementation, the 3D printed provisional material showed the thicker cementation film, different than all other materials (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Different provisional materials present different film thicknesses. The 3D printed provisional material showed the highest veneer and crown film thicknesses. Veneers film thicknesses were smaller than crowns for all provisional materials. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The 3D printed provisional material studied can be satisfactorily used, presenting appropriate adaptation with the tooth preparation, however, it shows the highest cement film thickness for both veneers and crowns cementations when compared with other provisional materials. A better internal fit, or smaller cement film thickness is obtained by CAD/CAM materials, acrylic and bisacrylic resins. Veneer cementation showed a smaller cement film thickness compared with crown cementation for all provisional materials.